1997SCMR1182 (PLP)
IMTIAZ AHMAD SADIQ, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, ANTI CORRUPTION, HEADQUARTER, LAHORE and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Rao SHAMSHER ALI KHAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1997SCMR1182 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Zia Mahmood Mirza and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ |
| Parties | IMTIAZ AHMAD SADIQ, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, ANTI CORRUPTION, HEADQUARTER, LAHORE and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Rao SHAMSHER ALI KHAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997SCMR1182 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997SCMR1182 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Zia Mahmood Mirza and Raja Afrasiab Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997SCMR1182 (PLP) (IMTIAZ AHMAD SADIQ, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, ANTI CORRUPTION, HEADQUARTER, LAHORE and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Rao SHAMSHER ALI KHAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Asadullah Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Salah‑ud -Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Dr. Khalid Ranjha, Advocate Supreme Court with Gulzar Hasan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th June, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 13‑11‑1993 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, passed in Appeal No.140/92). ‑‑‑‑S. 4(b)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine; whether appeal filed by respondent (civil servant) before Service Tribunal was at all competent in view of bar contained in S.4(b), Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, whereunder no appeal lies to Service Tribunal against the order of Competent Authority determining fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to or to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post or grade; whether order of Service Tribunal amounted to ordering promotion of respondent to Grade‑19 and Grade‑20, and if so, whether Service Tribunal had jurisdiction to order such promotion rather than allowing Competent Authority to consider case of such respondent alongwith other eligible officers; and whether order in question of Service Tribunal had adversely affected petitioners (civil servants) and whether such order could be passed in their absence and without. affording them opportunity of being heard.
Judgment & Decree
ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J. ‑‑‑Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 13‑11‑1993 whereby appeal of respondent NO. I has been allowed holding that "he was an officer in his own right in BS‑19 arid quite eligible for promotion in BS‑20 against the post available to him on his turn in that scale. He shall also be entitled to moveover in BS‑20 subject to usual conditions".
2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find it a fit case to grant leave to appeal to examine, inter alia:‑ (1) Whether the appeal filed by respondent No. l before the Punjab Service Tribunal was at all competent in view of the bar contained in section 4(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 whereunder no appeal lies to the Tribunal against the order of the competent Authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to or hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post or grade; (2) Whether the order of the learned Tribunal amounted to ordering the promotion of respondent No.1 to Grade‑19 and Grade‑20 and if so, whether the learned Tribunal had the jurisdiction to order such promotions rather than allowing the competent authority to consider the case of respondent No.l alongwith other elegible officers; (3) Whether the impugned order of the Service Tribunal has adversely affected the petitioners and whether such an order could be passed in their absence and without affording them opportunity of being heard.
2. The interim order already passed by this Court on 16‑1‑1994 shall continue pending the final disposal of the appeal. A.A./I‑237/S Leave granted.